Can Americans still have a sensible and friendly political discussion across the partisan divide? The answer is yes, and we prove it every week. Julie Roginsky, a Democrat, and Mike DuHaime, a Republican, are consultants who have worked on opposite teams for their entire careers yet have remained friends. Here, they discuss the week’s events with editorial page editor Tom Moran.
Q. Big week in politics. Rep. Andy Kim testified Monday in federal court in support of his claim that the “county line” gives First Lady Tammy Murphy an unfair advantage in the June Senate primary. If he wins that case, and the line is eliminated, does that put a spike in the heart of Murphy’s campaign?
Julie: If the line is eliminated, it puts a spike in the heart of more than just Tammy Murphy’s campaign. It ultimately puts a spike in the heart of the political power structure in New Jersey -- which is why I have repeatedly said since last year that these county leaders were incredibly short-sighted in rushing to endorse Tammy. Most of them have the loyalty of their county committees and are able to persuade the committees to go along with them, even in a secret ballot and without a public chair endorsement. All they needed to do was to call for a secret vote and they likely would have gotten the same result, without opening up a can of worms that may ultimately destroy them.
Mike: It doesn’t surprise me that Andy Kim cares little about the party structure in NJ, since he jumped straight to DC without serving in local or state office, and never seemed to care about the line until it impacted his life as an underdog. He is the darling of the progressives and media for attacking the line, though he never tried to change it when his incumbency was protected by it. If the line goes away, the Murphys’ unintended political legacy will be that they destroyed the strength of the party structure in this state, by accident, not on purpose.
Q. Meanwhile, Attorney General Matt Platkin went rogue in that case, telling the judge that he believes Kim is right, that the ballot design is unconstitutional, and that he will not defend the state law that allows it. Gov. Murphy objected immediately and is reportedly furious at Platkin. What do you make of Platkin’s move?
Julie: Matt has squeezed all the juice out of the Murphy orange, to paraphrase one of our former governors. He knows Murphy is on his way out soon and, in any event, can’t fire him because a governor cannot constitutionally fire the attorney general. Matt is likely thinking about what is best for his own career, which is clearly signaling to everyone outside the 21 county chairs that he believes in small “d” democracy. On a side note, this move is so emblematic of how Murphy-world operates. It’s not the first time Matt has thrown someone overboard who brought him to do the dance after that person served her purpose. Why would the governor be surprised that Matt is throwing him overboard after he has served his purpose in advancing Matt’s career too?
Mike: It is inconceivable to me that AG Platkin just went against the governor who made his career and stood by him every step of the way when others would not have. This is not a criminal matter in which one would rightly expect independence, but a political one that goes against precedent set by previous AGs of both parties, all of which undermines Tammy Murphy more than anyone.
Q. Legislative leaders of both parties made a rare joint statement, saying they will re-examine the ballot design no matter what happens in the court case. The statement doesn’t mention “the line” though, so I’m not sure how seriously to take it. What do you think?
Julie: There is about a 0.0% chance that the line will be meaningfully reformed by legislators, at least a third of whom would face serious primaries next year if the line no longer protected them. It’s either eradicated by the courts or not at all.
Mike: Party leaders should not be looking to diminish their own influence.
Q. In a shocking speech from the Senate floor, Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader and one of Israel’s strongest supporters, said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is an obstacle to peace and that Israel should hold new elections to replace him once the war in Gaza settles down. What did you think?
Julie: Schumer is saying what a lot of us in the Jewish community are thinking. Netanyahu is presiding over a deeply racist and increasingly autocratic government that does not reflect the views of even a majority of Israelis. I appreciate that Israel is not our vassal or a banana republic. On the other hand, is the expectation that the United States will unequivocally defend Netanyahu’s government in the United Nations and through foreign and military aid and not voice an opinion in how Netanyahu conducts this war or his domestic politics? Netanyahu has never been shy about inserting himself in our domestic politics (see: Romney, Willard Mitt). Now he’s shocked -- SHOCKED -- that gambling is going on here?
Mike: Countries don’t get to just take our financial and military support without also taking out advice. Standing solidly behind Israel does not mean standing solidly behind whoever the Prime Minster is at the time. Netanyahu has notably gone directly against US policy and recommendations at times. We do not want to make their decisions, but don’t deserve to be disregarded as well.
Q. Meanwhile, Netanyahu vehemently rejected President Biden’s call for restraint and pledged to invade Rafah, where half of Gaza’s population has taken refuge. If this becomes the bloodbath that Biden fears, what will happen to the relationship between Israel and the United States? What about the impact on the November election, as this becomes a more partisan issue, with Republicans in lockstep support of Netanyahu?
Julie: No one has done more to politicize support for Israel than Netanyahu, both by interfering in our domestic politics for over a decade and by the alliances he has made for self-preservation in his own domestic politics. It’s awful.
Mike: Ultimately, Israel must make its own decisions in the wake of the terror attack, but constant rejection of US advice will strain the relationship over time. But it is not like we will abandon the only democracy in the Middle East.
Q. Finally, Donald Trump says he can’t round up the money to pay a bond on the $454 million fine over “persistent fraud” in the conduct of his real estate business. Meanwhile, he’s using political donations to cover hefty legal fees, as the Biden campaign builds a substantial money advantage. How might all this affect the presidential campaign?
Julie: It solidifies the allegiance of Trump voters, who think he is on the cross dying for their sins. But as you point out, it also forces Trump to focus on raising money for legal fees and to secure a bond, rather than on raising money for his election. And it exposes him for vastly overstating his wealth, which is the most humiliating thing to him possible.
Mike: The impact that this has on the campaign is that Trump is preoccupied with this rather than campaigning. And his Super PAC paid more in legal bills last month than in donations that came in. The two most important resources of any campaign are the candidate’s time and the campaign’s money, both of which are severely hindered by the legal troubles.
Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.comOpinion on Facebook.
A note to readers: Mike and Julie are deeply engaged in politics and commercial advocacy in New Jersey, so both have connections to many players discussed in this column. DuHaime, the founder of MAD Global, has worked for Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and President George W. Bush. Roginsky, a principal of Comprehensive Communications Group, has served as senior advisor to campaigns of Cory Booker, Frank Lautenberg, and Phil Murphy. We will disclose specific connections only when readers might otherwise be misled.
